Ex Parte Garcia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

12914944 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/914,944 10/28/2010 Louie Daniel Garcia PCIRA.029A 6761
20995 7590 03/01/2017
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614
EXAMINER
KISHORE, GOLLAMUDI S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1612
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
jayna.cartee@knobbe.com
efiling @ knobbe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LOUIE DANIEL GARCIA, LOIS GIBSON,
WILLIAM JOSEPH LAMBERT, BENJAMIN W. LI, and LIANGJIN ZHU
Appeal 2016-0068971
Application 12/914,944
Technology Center 1600
Before DONALD E. ADAMS, RICHARD J. SMITH, and DAVID COTTA,
Administrative Patent Judges.
ADAMS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL2 3 4
This appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involves claims 24, 25, 35—42,
44, 57, 58, 75—83, 85, and 93—122 (Non-Final Act. 2).3,4 Examiner entered
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 This Appeal is related to Appeal 2016-006917, Application 13/786,323
(Br. 3).
2 Appellants identify the real party in interest as “PACIRA
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.” (Br. 3).
3 Examiner’s March 19, 2015 Non-Final Office Action.
4 Pending “[cjlaims 26-34 [stand] withdrawn” from consideration (Br. 6).
Appeal 2016-006897
Application 12/914,944
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ disclosure “relates to multivesicular liposome (MVL)
formulations of methotrexate (MTX) which minimize the side effects of
MTX while maintaining or improving efficacy” (Spec. 12). Claim 24 is
representative and reproduced below:
24. A method for treating autoimmune diseases, comprising
administering a formulation to a subject in need thereof by
injection, wherein said formulation comprises multivesicular
liposomes, said multivesicular liposomes comprise an amount of
a basic addition salt of methotrexate, one or more amphipathic
lipids or salts thereof, one or more neutral lipids, and optionally
cholesterol or plant sterols, wherein the formulation is
substantially cyclodextrin free, wherein administration of a
single dose of said formulation to the subject in need thereof
results in a plasma Cmax of said methotrexate of from 5% to 50%
of the plasma Cmax of immediate release dosage forms of
methotrexate, and wherein a duration of said methotrexate in the
subject is from about 1 to about 30 days.
(Br. 19 (emphasis added).) Appellants present two additional independent
claims, claims 75 and 98 (Br. 20 and 21—22). Claim 75 differs from claim
24 by limiting the method to a treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (Br. 20).
Claim 98 differs from claim 24 by limiting the method to a treatment of
rheumatoid arthritis and requiring the formulation to comprise cholesterol
and optionally lysine (Br. 21—22). The remaining claims depend directly or
indirectly from claims 24, 75, and 98 (19-23).
2
Appeal 2016-006897
Application 12/914,944
The claims stand rejected as follows:
I
Claims 24, 25, 35^12, 44, 52-54, 57, 58, 75-83, 85, and 93-122 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hartounian,5 Kim
’147,6 and Kim ’5737 alone or in combination.
Claims 24, 25, 35^12, 44, 52-54, 57, 58, 75-83, 85, and 93-122 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hartounian, Kim
’147, and Kim ’573 alone or in combination, taken with Heath.8
Claims 24, 25, 35^12, 44, 52-54, 57, 58, 75-83, 85, 93-122 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hartounian, Kim
’147, and Kim ’573 alone or in combination, taken with Funk.9
Claims 24, 25, 35^12, 44, 52-54, 57, 58, 75-83, 85, and 93-122 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hartounian, Kim
’147, and Kim ’573 alone or in combination, taken with Heath and Funk.
Claims 24, 25, 35^12, 44, 52-54, 57, 58, 75-83, 85, and 93-122 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hartounian, Kim
’147, and Kim ’573 alone or in combination, taken with Heath, Funk,
Walsh,10 Hendrix,* 11 Low,12 and Shirley.13
5 Hartounian et al., WO 99/25319 Al, published May 27, 1999.
6 Kim et al., US 5,723,147, issued Mar. 3, 1998.
7 Kim, US 5,759,573, issued June 2, 1998.
8 Heath et al., US 4,565,696, issued Jan. 21, 1986.
9 Funk et al., US 2009/0232731 Al, published Sept. 17, 2009.
10 Walsh, US 2007/0093497 Al, published Apr. 26, 2007.
11 Hendrix, US 2006/0116334 Al, published June 1, 2006.
12 Low et al., US 2002/0192157 Al, published Dec. 19, 2002.
13 Shirley et al., US 6,306,432 Bl, published Oct. 23, 2001.
3
Appeal 2016-006897
Application 12/914,944
II
Claims 36—38 and 77—79 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hartounian, Kim ’147, and Kim ’573 alone or in
combination, taken with Walsh, Hendrix, Low, and Shirley.
Claims 36—38 and 77—79 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hartounian, Kim ’147, and Kim ’573 alone or in
combination, taken with Heath, Walsh, Hendrix, Low, and Shirley.
Claims 36—38 and 77—79 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hartounian, Kim ’147, and Kim ’573 alone or in
combination, taken with Prey,14 with or without Keller15 and/or Baldwin.16
Claims 36—38 and 77—79 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hartounian, Kim ’147, and Kim ’573 alone or in
combination, taken with Walsh, Hendrix, Low, Shirley, and Prey, with or
without Keller and/or Baldwin.
Claims 36—38 and 77—79 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hartounian, Kim ’147, and Kim ’573 alone or in
combination, taken with Funk and Prey, with or without Keller and/or
Baldwin.
14 S. Prey & C. Paul, Effect of folic or folinic acid supplementation on
methotrexate-associated safety and efficacy in inflammatory disease: a
systematic review, 160 British Journal of Dermatology 622—28 (2009).
15 Keller et al., US 2007/0065541 Al, published Mar. 22, 2007.
16 Baldwin et al., US 2008/0075807 Al, published Mar. 27, 2008.
4
Appeal 2016-006897
Application 12/914,944
Obviousness:
ISSUE
Does the preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner support
a conclusion of obviousness?
FACTUAL FINDINGS (FF)
FF 1. Hartounian “relates to emulsification processes for preparing
multivesicular liposome [(MVL)] formulations, with sustained release
characteristics and the formulations produced by those processes”
(Hartounian 1: 9—11; see generally Ans. 3).
FF 2. Hartounian “provides a process for producing MVL by providing a
water in oil (w/o) emulsion, which is made from an aqueous phase dispersed
in a solvent phase containing amphipathic and neutral lipids” (Hartounian 4:
24—26).
FF 3. Hartounian discloses that “[i]n general, for making multivesicular
liposomes, it is required that at least one amphipathic lipid and at least one
neutral lipid be included in the lipid component,” wherein
[t]he neutral lipid component can comprise a single neutral
lipid, or the neutral lipid component can comprise a mixture of a
slow release neutral lipid and a fast release neutral lipid in a
molar ratio range from about 1:1 to 1:100 ... , wherein the rate
of release of the biologically active compound decreases in
proportion with the increase in the ratio of the slow release
neutral lipid to the fast release neutral lipid.
(Hartounian 14: 10-11; id. at 14: 28 — 15: 3; see also id. at 11: 3—12
(Hartounian discloses a process for producing MVLs, wherein “an acid or
other excipient [is used] for modulating the release rate of the encapsulated
biologically active substances from the MVL”)).
5
Appeal 2016-006897
Application 12/914,944
FF 4. Hartounian discloses methotrexate (MTX) as a physiologically
active substance that may be included within the MVL, wherein “[a]ny
pharmaceutically acceptable salt of a particular physiologically active
substance which is capable of forming such a salt is also envisioned as being
useful in the present invention, including halide salts, phosphate salts,
acetate salts, and other salts” (Hartounian 16: 13—15 and 25 (emphasis
added); see generally Ans. 3 and 4).
FF 5. Hartounian discloses that the MVL formulation may be administered
by injection (see Hartounian 17: 4—6; id. at 31: 10-13; see generally Ans. 7).
FF 6. Hartounian discloses a general method for preparing MVLs that
comprises combining first and second emulsions, wherein the second
emulsion “can comprise pH buffering agents, osmotic agents, sugars, amino
acids, electrolytes, preservatives, and other excipients known in the art of
semi-solid dosage forms. Examples of such constituents include lysine,
dextrose, and glucose” (see Hartounian 20: 21—24; see generally id. at 13—
31).
FF 7. Hartounian exemplifies the preparation of a number of MVLs
containing various physiologically active substances in the presence of an
acid or a base (see generally Hartounian 34: 12—19 (exemplifying “an
aqueous solution including[, inter alia,] morphine sulfate [and] 10%
hydrochloric acid”)); id. at 40: 5—25 (exemplifying “[a] cytarabine
preparation [comprising] HC1 (10% w/v);” “[a] morphine preparation
[comprising] HC1 (10% w/v),” and “[a]n insulin-like growth factor (IgF-l)
preparation [comprising] 0.041 NNH4OH”)).
6
Appeal 2016-006897
Application 12/914,944
FF 8. Kim ’147 “relates to the composition of synthetic [MVLs] or
liposomes encapsulating biologically active substances and to methods for
their manufacture and use” (Kim ’147 1: 18—21; see generally Ans. 3).
FF 9. Kim ’147 discloses that “the addition of a hydrochloride, such as
hydrochloric acid or other hydrochlorides such as lysine hydrochloride, is
essential for high encapsulation efficiency and controlled release rate of
encapsulated molecules in biological fluids and in vivo” (Kim ’147 3: 51—
56).
FF 10. Kim ’573 discloses “[ljiposomes containing cyclodextrin in the
encapsulated aqueous phase are useful for encapsulation of biologically
active substances, especially those which are hydrophilic” (Kim ’573,
Abstract; id. at 4: 14—34 (Kim ’573 “is directed to forming inclusion
complexes of water-soluble compounds, such as methotrexate, with
cyclodextrins, preferably P-cyclodextrin, and to encapsulating the inclusion
complex into liposomes for controlled release,” wherein the “formation of an
inclusion complex results in a reduction in the rate of release of the
hydrophilic compound from the liposome compared to the rate of release of
the same compound encapsulated in the absence of the cyclodextrin”).
FF 11. Kim ’573 exemplifies the synthesis of liposomes “encapsulating
methotrexate in the presence of cyclodextrin,” wherein the synthesis
comprises the preparation of a “discontinuous aqueous phase[, which]
consisted of 2-hydroxypropyl-P-cyclodextrin solution (100 mg/ml), HC1
(0.1N) and methotrexate (10 mg/ml)” (Kim ’573 7: 56—62; see generally
Ans. 3).
7
Appeal 2016-006897
Application 12/914,944
FF 12. Los declares, inter alia, that Hartounian and Kim ’147 disclose
processes for the preparation of MVLs or liposomes that comprise the
addition of an acid (see Los Dec.1714).
FF 13. Los declares that “a basic [addition] salt of methotrexate, for
example, sodium methotrexate or potassium methotrexate [] cannot exist in
an acidic environment” (Los Dec. 1 6).
FF 14. Examiner finds that Hartounian, Kim ’147, and Kim ’573 “do not
teach the use of methotrexate sodium or potassium salts” and relies on Heath
to make up for this deficiency in Hartounian, Kim ’147, and Kim ’573 taken
alone or in combination (Ans. 4—5).
FF 15. Heath exemplifies the “Preparation of Methotrexate Encaptured
BSA-vesicle Conjugates,” wherein “[t]he liposomes were prepared in a
solution which contained 50 mM methotrexate (sodium salt), 50 mM
morpholinoethanesulphonic acid, 50 mM morpholinopropanesulphonic acid,
pH 6.7” (Heath 5: 3—11; see generally Ans. 4 and 8—9).
FF 16. Examiner finds that Hartounian, Kim ’147, and Kim ’573 taken
alone or in combination with or without Heath fails to suggest a composition
that “inclu[des] [] folate,” and relies on Walsh, Hendrix, Shirley, and Low to
make up for this deficiency in Hartounian, Kim ’147, and Kim ’573 taken
alone or in combination with or without Heath (Ans. 5).
FF 17. Examiner finds that Hartounian, Kim ’147, Kim ’573, Walsh,
Hendrix, Low, and Shirley fail to disclose “the use of [a MVL] composition
for the treatment of autoimmune diseases” and relies on Funk to disclose
17 Declaration of Kathleen Los, signed Sept. 18, 2014.
8
Appeal 2016-006897
Application 12/914,944
“the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis using liposomal methotrexate (sodium
salt)” (Ans. 7).
FF 18. Funk relates “to the use of cationic liposomal preparations for the
treatment or diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis or related disorders,” wherein
Funk found that “methotrexate [(‘[pjreferably, ... in its salt, most preferably
the disodium salt form’)] loaded liposomes comprising a very high amount
of cationic lipid are stable” (Funk Abstract; see id. 139; see generally Ans.
7).
FF 19. Examiner finds that Hartounian, Kim ’147, Kim ’573, Walsh,
Hendrix, Low, Shirley, and Funk fail to disclose “the administration of
folate separately in liposomes” and relies on Prey with or without Keller
and/or Baldwin to disclose “the administration of folic acid decreases the
side effects associated with the administration of methotrexate” and “the
encapsulation of vitamins including folate in liposomes” (Ans. 7—8).
ANALYSIS
I
Hartounian, Kim ’147, and Kim ’573 alone or in combination, taken with or
without: (a) Heath and Funk, alone or in combination or (b) the
combination of Heath, Funk, Walsh, Hendrix, Low, and Shirley.18
Based on Hartounian, Kim ’147, and Kim ’573, alone or in
combination, taken with or without Heath and/or Funk, Examiner concludes
that, at the time Appellants’ invention was made, it would have been prima
18 We recognize Examiner’s reference to Jallad (US 2003/0162234 Al,
published Aug. 28, 2003), to suggest that “folate binding receptors have
been found in blood monocytes” (Ans. 6). Examiner’s statement of the
rejection, however, does not include Jallad (see id. at 5; c/ id. at 2—3
(Examiner withdrew the rejection including Jallad from consideration).
Therefore, we have not included Jallad in our deliberations.
9
Appeal 2016-006897
Application 12/914,944
facie obvious to have a method of treating an autoimmune disease or
rheumatoid arthritis by administering an MLV comprising a basic addition
salt of MTX that exhibited a release profile that is “the same as” is required
by Appellants’ claimed invention (see Ans. 3—4, 5, and 7). In this regard,
Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in this art would have used
routine optimization to adjust the release profile of the MVL to obtain any
desired release rate (Ans. 3^4; see also id. at 8—9). Examiner further asserts
that “[t]he criticality of the use of an additional salt of methotrexate is not
readily apparent to the examiner [because] methotrexate [was] known to
exist in a salt form such as a sodium salt and [Hartounian discloses] either
the active agents or their salts could be used” in the formulation of MVL
comprising active agents (Ans. 4). We are not persuaded.
Appellants’ claimed methods require, inter alia, the administration of
MVLs that comprise an amount of a basic addition salt of methotrexate (see
Br. 19 (Appellants’ claim 24; see also Br. 20 and 21—22 (Appellants’
independent claims 75 and 98, respectively). Thus, notwithstanding
Examiner’s contention to the contrary, the criticality of the basic addition
salt of methotrexate is clear from Appellants’ claimed invention, which
requires, inter alia, that the MVLs comprise a basic addition salt of
methotrexate (see Br. 19, 20, and 21—22 (Appellants’ independent claims 1,
75, and 98, respectively); cf Ans. 4).
Hartounian’s generic disclosure of the preparation of MVLs suggests
a process for formulating MVLs, wherein “an acid or other excipient for
modulating the release rate of the encapsulated biologically active
substances from the MVL” is used and that the ratio of slow and fast release
neutral lipids present in the MVL may be modified to adjust the MVL’s
10
Appeal 2016-006897
Application 12/914,944
release rate (FF 3). Hartounian, however, exemplifies MVLs prepared in the
presence of an acid or a base (see FF 6, and 7; Ans. 9 (“nothing in
[Hartounian] indicate[s] that the process should be conducted in acidic
conditions”); see also Ans. 10; see generally Br. 9). In addition, Kim ’147
discloses that an acid “is essential for high encapsulation efficiency and
controlled release rate of encapsulated molecules in biological fluids and in
vivo” (FF 9; see generally Br. 9).
Kim ’573 discloses liposomes containing cyclodextrin to encapsulate
biologically active substances, thereby forming inclusion complexes that
result “in a reduction in the rate of release of [active substance] from the
liposome compared to the rate of release of the same [substance]
encapsulated in the absence of the cyclodextrin” (FF 10; cf. Br. 19, 20, and
21—22 (Appellants’ independent claims 24, 75, and 98 require the
administration of MVLs that are “substantially cyclodextrin free”) (emphasis
added)). Examiner fails to establish an evidentiary basis on this record to
support a conclusion that Kim ’573 alone or in combination with other
references suggests an MVL that is substantially cyclodextrin free, as is
required by Appellants’ claimed invention (see Br. 9—10). Nevertheless,
Kim ’573 further exemplifies a method of producing liposomes, wherein the
process comprises the use of an acid (FF 11).
Examiner failed to explain how Hartounian, Kim ’147, or Kim ’573,
taken alone or in combination, suggest a reason why a person of ordinary
skill in this art would have prepared MVLs that contain a base salt of MTX.
As discussed above, each of Hartounian, Kim ’147, or Kim ’573 suggest
methods that require the presence of an acid (FF 3, 6, 7, and 9; see Br. 8—
10). As Los makes clear, “a basic [addition] salt of methotrexate, for
11
Appeal 2016-006897
Application 12/914,944
example, sodium methotrexate or potassium methotrexate [] cannot exist in
an acidic environment” (FF 13). Further, while Hartounian suggests that “an
acid or other excipient[, e.g., the ratio of slow and fast release neutral
lipids,]” may be used to control the release rate of an active agent from a
MVL and a preparative process that includes the presence of a base,
Examiner failed to explain why Hartounian alone or in combination with
Kim ’147, or Kim ’573 would have used a process that excluded an acid to
specifically formulate a MVL that comprises a basic addition salt of MTX
(see FF 3 and 7). To the contrary, Examiner finds that while Hartounian
discloses “the use of active agents or their salts,” Hartounian, Kim ’147, and
Kim ’573 “do not teach the use of [a basic addition salt of MTX, such as,]
methotrexate sodium or potassium salts specifically” (FF 14).
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection over Hartounian, Kim ’ 147,
and Kim ’573 alone or in combination is reversed.
Examiner, however, relies on Heath and/or Funk to make up for the
foregoing deficiency in Hartounian, Kim ’147, and Kim ’573, taken alone or
in combination (FF 14 and 17). Specifically, Examiner relies on Heath to
suggest the sodium salt of MTX (Ans. 4). Examiner, however, fails to
appreciate that Heath discloses a preparative method that includes the
sodium salt of MTX in an acidic composition (FF 15). Again, as Los makes
clear, “a basic [addition] salt of methotrexate, for example, sodium
methotrexate or potassium methotrexate [] cannot exist in an acidic
environment” (FF 13). Examiner failed to explain how Heath supports
Examiner’s rationale that because “methotrexate is an acid and highly
insoluble in water, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art that one can prepare a sodium or potassium salt [] with another organic
12
Appeal 2016-006897
Application 12/914,944
base” (see Ans. 5; cf. FF 15). In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir.
2006) (“rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness”).
Funk discloses cationic liposomes that comprise the disodium salt of
MTX (see FF 18). According to Examiner “[i]t would have been obvious to
use the composition of Kim [’]573 or [’] 147 or [Hartounian] to treat
autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis with a reasonable
expectation of success since Funk teaches that methotrexate salt can be used
for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis” (Ans. 7; see FF 17—18). Examiner,
however, failed to explain how a person of ordinary skill in this art would
have combined Funk, which relates to cationic liposomes, with the other
references relied upon by Examiner to formulate an MVL within the scope
of Appellants’ claimed invention. See Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988.
For the foregoing reasons, the rejections over Hartounian, Kim ’147,
and Kim ’573 alone or in combination, taken with Heath and/or Funk are
reversed.
Examiner fails to establish that Walsh, Hendrix, Low, and Shirley,
relied upon by Examiner to suggest a composition that includes folate,
makes up for the foregoing deficiencies in the combination of Hartounian,
Kim ’147, and Kim ’573 alone or in combination, taken with Heath and/or
Funk (FF 16; see generally FF 1—11 and 14—17; Br. 11).
For the foregoing reasons, the rejection over Hartounian, Kim ’ 147,
and Kim ’573 alone or in combination, taken with Heath, Funk, Walsh,
Hendrix, Low, and Shirley is reversed.
13
Appeal 2016-006897
Application 12/914,944
II
Hartounian, Kim ’147, and Kim ’573 alone or in combination, taken with
Walsh, Hendrix, Low, and Shirley with or without Heath'.
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the rejection over
Hartounian, Kim ’147, and Kim ’573 alone or in combination, taken with
Walsh, Hendrix, Low, and Shirley with or without Heath.
Hartounian, Kim ’147, and Kim ’573, alone or in combination, taken with
Prey, with or without Keller and/or Baldwin; with or without: (a) the
combination of Walsh, Hendrix, Low, and Shirley or (b) Funk.
Examiner relies on Prey, with or without Keller and/or Baldwin to
disclose “the administration of folic acid decreases the side effects
associated with the administration of methotrexate” and “the encapsulation
of vitamins including folate in liposomes” (FF 19). Examiner, however,
fails to establish that Prey, with or without Keller and/or Baldwin, makes up
for the above discussed deficiencies in Hartounian, Kim ’147, and Kim ’573
alone or in combination, with or without: (a) the combination of Walsh,
Hendrix, Low, and Shirley or (b) Funk (see, e.g., Br. 11—12).
For the foregoing reasons, the rejections over Hartounian, Kim ’147,
and Kim ’573 alone or in combination, taken with Prey, with or without
Keller and/or Baldwin; with or without: (a) the combination of Walsh,
Hendrix, Low, and Shirley or (b) Funk are reversed.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The preponderance of evidence relied upon by Examiner fails to
support a conclusion of obviousness.
14
Appeal 2016-006897
Application 12/914,944
I
The rejection of claims 24, 25, 35—42, 44, 52—54, 57, 58, 75—83, 85,
and 93—122 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hartounian, Kim
’147, and Kim ’573 alone or in combination is reversed.
The rejection of claims 24, 25, 35—42, 44, 52—54, 57, 58, 75—83, 85,
and 93—122 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hartounian, Kim
’147, and Kim ’573 alone or in combination, taken with Heath is reversed.
The rejection of claims 24, 25, 35—42, 44, 52—54, 57, 58, 75—83, 85,
93—122 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hartounian, Kim
’147, and Kim ’573 alone or in combination, taken with Funk is reversed.
The rejection of claims 24, 25, 35—42, 44, 52—54, 57, 58, 75—83, 85,
and 93—122 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hartounian, Kim
’147, and Kim ’573 alone or in combination, taken with Heath and Funk is
reversed.
The rejection of claims 24, 25, 35—42, 44, 52—54, 57, 58, 75—83, 85,
and 93—122 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hartounian, Kim
’147, and Kim ’573 alone or in combination, taken with Heath, Funk, Walsh,
Hendrix, Low, and Shirley is reversed.
II
The rejection of claims 36—38 and 77—79 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hartounian, Kim ’147, and Kim ’573 alone or in
combination, taken with Walsh, Hendrix, Low, and Shirley is reversed.
The rejection of claims 36—38 and 77—79 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hartounian, Kim ’147, and Kim ’573 alone or in
15
Appeal 2016-006897
Application 12/914,944
combination, taken with Heath, Walsh, Hendrix, Low, and Shirley is
reversed.
The rejection of claims 36—38 and 77—79 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hartounian, Kim ’147, and Kim ’573 alone or in
combination, taken with Prey, with or without Keller and/or Baldwin is
reversed.
The rejection of claims 36—38 and 77—79 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hartounian, Kim ’147, and Kim ’573 alone or in
combination, taken with Walsh, Hendrix, Low, Shirley, and Prey, with or
without Keller and/or Baldwin is reversed.
The rejection of claims 36—38 and 77—79 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hartounian, Kim ’147, and Kim ’573 alone or in
combination, taken with Funk and Prey, with or without Keller and/or
Baldwin is reversed.
REVERSED
16